A Self-Created Marsh

Abdul Momin

The enquiry into the origins of modern revisionism has of necessity to
undertake an examination of the Twentieth Congress of the CPSU of 1956. This
task has been made complicated by the fact that those who incepted the critique
of Soviet revisionism - the Party of Labour of Albania and Enver Hoxha in 1960
and the Communist party of China and Mao Zedong in 1963 - themselves hailed the
Twentieth Congress in 1956. The polemics of the international communist movement
in the 1960s failed to fully illumine the real nature of the counter-revolution
which had taken place in the USSR after the death of Stalin. As a result the
understanding of the origins of modern revisionism and the restoration of
capitalism in the USSR remains obscure and incomplete. It is perhaps for this
reason that the publication of two contemporary critiques of the Twentieth
Congress by Neil Goold and Moni Guha and the historical assessment of the
Congress by 'Inter' in this journal (Vol. II, No. 1, April 1996) has evoked
considerable interest. This is evident from the fact that these articles have
been reprinted around the world and are being translated into various languages.

If the parties which participated in the Great Debate were compromised by
their earlier support for the Twentieth Congress of the CPSU then it may also be
noted that those who were early critics of the Twentieth Congress were not
necessarily able to carry out a consistent and uncompromising struggle against
modern revisionism. Thus Bhupen Palit who authored excellent but flawed
criticisms of Soviet and Chinese revisionism passed over to accepting the
political positions of the arch-revisionist CPI(M).1
Similarly Moni Guha whose critiques of Soviet and Chinese revisionism broke new
ground in the period 1978-82 lapsed into anti-Stalinism in the 1980s.2
The pressure of the anti-Marxist ideological trends on the developing
Marxist-Leninist movement has been powerful and persistent. The Communist Party
of Germany (KPD) which supported the principled positions of the Party of Labour
of Albania for many years came under the influence of Trotskyism and had to be
reconstructed afresh. The Communist Party of New Zealand which was descended
from the period of the Communist International and which upheld Marxist
evaluations of Soviet and Chinese revisionism succumbed to neo-Trotskyism before
being reconstituted as the Communist Party of New Zealand Reconstruction
Collective.

Abdul Momin, the author of the critique given below, was a leading Communist
trade unionist in Bengal whose name has been written in letters of gold in the
working class movement for having led and won the historic carters' strike in
Calcutta in 1930. The polemic was directed against an article by Saroj Acharya
who supported the Twentieth Congress of the CPSU in 1956. This reply appeared in
the Calcutta-based Bengali literary journal Parichaya, in September-October
1956. What immediately strikes the eye about the discussion is its continued
relevance for the Communist movement. The views of Saroj Acharya are still the
standard stock-in-trade of contemporary revisionism: that the capitalism of the
20th Century is different from that of the 19th century, that the exploitation
present in capitalist society continued in socialist society, that 'blind faith'
and 'manufactured truth', governed the attitude of communists to the USSR, that
'class truth' and 'party truth' negated the over-riding need of 'human truth'
etc. Such notions have been repeated ad nauseam over the last four decades.
Abdul Momin skilfully and effectively counters the ideological critique of the
Stalin period. His reply speaks for itself. It only needs to be said that his
arguments retain their force today and that they shall assist the Communists two
generations on who are engaged in the contemporary struggles for democracy and
socialism.

References

Rank and File Marxist, Khrushchov's Role Before and After Stalin's
Death, Calcutta, n.d., 27 pp._________ A Critique on the Question of Stalin, Calcutta, 1966, 89
pp.

Moni Guha, Yugoslav Revisionism and the Role of the CPSU and CPC, Calcutta,1978,
62 pp._________ Revisionism Against Revisionism, Calcutta, 1979, 63 pp.

See also the three issues of Proletarian Path, Calcutta, Second
Series, 1981-82.

According to Mr. Sarojbabu, although there has been a setback to the Marxist
movement self-doubt and regret alone will not lead us anywhere. He has no doubt
about the historical necessity and inspiration for the emancipation of mankind.
Despite all the mistakes and excesses, indubitably, the mainstream of social
progress lies on the path of socialism. So one needs to look for the solutions
to current problems within Marxism itself and this is possible only if Marxist
intellectuals rectify the errors which they had hitherto committed.

And what are the mistakes? Sarojbabu adds-

1. Despite knowing all the demerits of the Soviet system due to necessity,
fear or devotion these were covered tip and the Soviet leadership was taken to
be faultless and beyond question or debate. The crime was not to have supported
the Soviet Union in its moment of danger but in having 'manufactured truths' for
that purpose.

2. 'The Soviet Union is the first testing ground of building the Socialist
state'. Treating this testing ground as the 'promised land' is the source of all
mistakes.

3. 'The difference between the capitalism of the 19th century and that of
today is not negligible'. The Marxist intellectuals failed to see this and they
followed the 'holy texts' to the letter.

4. 'Our everyday praise is based on certain formulas which are taken to be
the ultimate truth.' These are the class-truths, party-truths and the truths
discovered by the Soviet leadership. The worship of these truths 'imposed severe
constraints on the independent thought' of the Marxist intellectuals. Consenting
to the hegemony of the Soviet leadership in the name of internationalism was a
great mistake.

5. 'The exploitation and lack of dignity of humanity that we have seen in
capitalism can be repeated on a much larger scale in the centralized collective
rule' as happened in Soviet Russia. One needs to overcome it.

By showing all these mistakes and shortcomings Sarojbabu says: 'The primary
allegiance of any Marxist is to the fundamental human truth and that truth is
the life-force of Marxist theory and practice. Deviation from this and surrender
to any earthly or supernatural power is bound to mislead and distort the Marxist
endeavour. True consciousness is the fearless evaluation of the theory and
practice, which is founded upon the experiences of countless numbers'. Marxist
intellectuals get into trouble because they do not follow this and put their
faith in the texts and their leaders. They will have to rectify their mistakes.

It is difficult to make sense of Sarojbabu's ideas. It seems that he is not
only concerned with the plight of the Marxist intellectuals but wants to reform
Marxism itself. If this is not done, that is, if the process of applying Marxism
is not changed then 'true consciousness' would not emerge.

According to Sarojbabu whatever happens in history, if it creates
'anti-humanist attitudes and practices' it cannot be regarded as true. He did
not feel it necessary to enquire into the historical causes of the events of
post-revolutionary Russia. But he still believes that it is 'anti-human'
(following the Khrushchev Report?). Since it is against humanism it is also
wrong and avoidable. If truth is derived from the word of one man alone there is
no need for further enquiry. It seems that the Report of the Twentieth Congress,
especially the Secret Report, is the source of the inspiration of Sarojbabu. But
is he not showing his own blind faith by accepting it without any questions? But
is there anything in the Report in which Sarojbabu finds a 'space for
examination and discussion' for 'the problems of communism and scope of human
development' through which we can do away with class truth or party-truth and
engage only in 'the evaluation of theory and practice'? It does not seem that
Khrushchev has given that opportunity anywhere.

Sarojbabu alleges that truth was manufactured to suit objectives: despite
knowing the fault and defects of the Soviet system these were suppressed because
of fear, devotion or simple necessity. As the Soviet Union was regarded as the
holy site of socialism instead of being a place of experimentation the Soviet
leadership was also regarded as being beyond question and doubt.

If any Marxist intellectual who has no contact with reality were to spin such
a tale then it would be a different matter. But Sarojbabu should remember that
the true Marxists who are trying to gradually realize Marxism with their blood
do not live in an utopia. No one can manufacture truth: any such vain effort
itself is false. Truth is above such efforts and is created through historical
dialectics. In the ever-changing world whatever is regarded as true at any
particular moment may be proved to be false at the next. The true Marxists
acknowledge this and attempt to find the complexity in all the events and try to
cognise it.

Every Marxist who had not lost touch with reality knew that the Soviet Union
was no Garden of Eden. Freed from the centuries-old yoke of feudalism and
undergoing a very short period of capitalist rule, Soviet society was not very
highly developed. When the socialist revolution succeeded there due to
historical reasons the primary task of every Marxist was to firmly establish
socialism and to defeat its enemies. The question of covering up the defects
does not arise here.

At the same time the Soviet Union is not just a testing ground for socialism,
as were the ideal colonies which were established by Fourier or Owen. It was
born through the dialectics of history and the revolution: it is not the place
where one tries out the whims and wishes of anybody.

So is it a holy site? Whether it is a holy site or not, other than the Paris
Commune the Soviet Union is the first place where the proletarian revolution was
successful and the socialist state was built. True Marxists judge the Soviet
Union from this point of view. They watch each and every step which is taken
there, they try out the experiences of the Soviet leadership while adapting it
to suit their own milieu. There is nothing wrong with this. If the
experience of the Soviet Union had been imitated blindly then that would have
been an error. But that did not happen in China, Korea, Indo-China or Eastern
Europe. Efforts are being made there to adapt the basic tenets of Marxism to
suit local conditions.

Sarojbabu knows all this. Yet he adopts an unrealistic, un-Marxist and
unscientific point of view. He demeans every Marxist by calling them blind
supporters of the Soviet Union. Not only that. He makes a dig at their 'blind
faith and devotion' and says that unless one frees oneself from class truth,
party truth, Soviet-discovered truth and sovereignty, international integrity or
'centralised, totalitarian, collective rule' one cannot achieve true
consciousness. By the Marxist analysis one can understand that there exist
classes in society and that class conflict also exists which arrives at a
revolutionary conclusion. The thought and ideals of different classes are also
different. One cannot disregard this by raising the question as to whether or
not these notions are rational or anti-humanist. If different classes exist then
particular ideas, ideals and truths are also bound to be different.

Working class rule and socialism cannot be established unless capitalism is
completely destroyed. For this purpose the Party comes into being as the true
representative of the dreams, inspirations and actions as well as to provide
skilled leadership. The Party is not created from outside. It is created from
the daily experience of the working class in order to carry out the present and
future tasks. As it is based on an ideal its voluntary and self-regulated rules
and discipline are inviolable. The Party is not based on lifeless regulations.
It is realised through the practice, courage, sacrifice, endurance and
correctness of each member. Not judgement alone but the realization of theory
and practice is its primary aim. It is not ruled by a dictatorial leadership but
every task is performed through the judgement of its members. The Party is the
symbol of collective leadership.

As classes exist in society the Party is needed to unite (the working class ed.)
and guide it on the path of revolution. For the same reason there is also the
need of international fraternity and cooperation to establish and build
socialism after the destruction of capitalism. Similarly, there is also the need
for the dictatorship of the proletariat. All of this is intrinsically linked
with working class revolution and socialism. True consciousness can only arise
through the realization of all this. One can neither look down upon all of this
by dubbing it as 'blind faith' nor can one negate their importance.

Yet Sarojbabu is worried about losing his independence of thought. But it is
a fact that the ideas of a single person cannot be the parameter of judging
everything. There are limits to independent thought. In our limited world with
its limited set of rules and regulations although there is scope of independent
thinking it is ultimately limited. Despite knowing the importance of Marxism
Sarojbabu advocates the abolition of classes and parties. He is not helping the
cause of Marxist intellectuals. Marxism is both scientific and revolutionary. To
equate it with liberal rationalism is its death. Sarojbabu has done exactly that
in his essay.

Despite the material prosperity of the Soviet Union the spiritual improvement
of the people might not have been achieved. New attempts on that front are now
on. But just because of this there is no reason to think that socialism has
failed or that the Soviet state has gone against the teachings of Marxism. What
has to be noted is whether capitalist rule has been abolished there and whether
social ownership has been attained in place of the private ownership of wealth.
This happened and it happened through the dictatorship of the proletariat and
not through 'centralized, totalitarian, oligarchic rule'. To build a new society
constant struggle must be waged against the ghost of the previous one. Mistakes
may occur in the process. It is possible that these might have occurred.
Attempts at rectification are also on. But these are not happening outside the
Marxist scheme.

Sarojbabu is not ready to agree to this. Since mistakes have occurred then
according to him despite the fact that the notion of the dictatorship of the
proletariat is present in Marxism, in the Soviet Union it has resulted in
centralized totalitarian rule.

Here Sarojbabu shows his own ignorance and blind faith. Class rule is not
oligarchic rule. He cannot prove that an oligarchy has been established in the
Soviet Union in any way. He expresses regret that once a mistake is committed,
despite its rectification, one cannot have the same faith as before. By this
logic one will never find out why mistakes occur or whether there is any need
for correction.

Dialectics is the primary truth of Marxism. Marxists base their analysis on
the dialectical method and come to their conclusions. Mistakes still occur
because one cannot always take into account the dynamics of all the events and
factors. As a result sometimes wrong conclusions are drawn. Once the mistakes
are located these conclusions are rejected. In this process no one loses faith
in Marxism.

On the contrary new knowledge and experience enrich Marxist consciousness.
Sarojbabu fails to see all this. It seems that is why he has failed to
understand certain fundamental Marxist teaching in the name of 'consciousness'
or 'truth'. He does not damage Marxism by all this but only himself.